Delhi HC struck down UGC Regulations 5.4 ruling it as arbitrary

Delhi High Court in its historic judgment on Monday, October 1, 2018
stood by the students and rebuked JNU and UGC for its 2016 Regulations which
the Court declared, “without
proper application of mind”,
and decided the arbitrary rules are causing reductions in intake of number of
students in Ph.D. and M.Phil. courses.

Facts of the case

A new policy was put forward by JNU on February 3, 2017 which stated
that admission to M.Phil/Ph.D. courses will be done on the basis of University
Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D.
Degrees) Regulations, 2016 (UGC 2016 Regulations) and 80% weightage would be given in the written exam and 20% weightage
to viva voce for final selection, apart from the suggestion of a phased
reduction in intake of students (see, March
17, 2017 ruling of Delhi High Court).

Call For Paper Advertisement

The petitioners, Student Federation of India [Student federation of India Ltd
and others v. UOI] and Arun Krishnan represented by their
advocate Gaurav Bharadwaj further alleged that, “current admission policy of JNU, which is ultra vires the Article 14 of the Constitution and also regulation
5.5.2 of the UGC Regulations which directs higher educational institutions to
notify well in advance … all relevant information.”

Advocate Bharadwaj explained, “UGC
2016 Regulations are unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional for several
reasons” as it was alleged that for students of both reserved and
non-reserved category the rules are ultra
vires with respect to the special
provisions created under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation
In Admission) Act, 2006 (CEI Act), pursuant to the amendment to Article 15. Further, “regulation 5.4.1 of
the UGC Regulations of 2016 reduce the written examination as a mere qualifying
process which means that the candidate whose eligibility on account of passing or
clearing the examination would be of no avail.”

Court ruling

The case was presented in the Court of Honourable Justices S. Ravindra
Bhat and A. K. Chawla who took note of all the relevant arguments put forth by
counsels from both the petitioners and the respondents. The Court held Regulation
5.4 of the University Grants Commission
(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degrees)
Regulations, 2016 “to be plainly or
manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable” and needed to be struck down.

Placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib 1981 SCR
(2) 79, where it was held: “having regard
to the drawbacks and
deficiencies in the
oral interview test
and the conditions prevailing
in the country,
particularly when there is
deterioration in moral
values and corruption
and nepotism are very
much on the
increase, allocation of
a high percentage of
marks for the
oral interview as
compared to the marks
allocated for the
written test, cannot
be accepted by the
Court as free
from the vice
of arbitrariness.”

the Delhi High Court stated,

“Academics are no doubt brilliant
in their fields; however they are not immune to baser tendencies, such as
unconscious bias (subject matter, mannerisms, perceived lack of respect, etc).
This can tend to cloud their wisdom and conferring the exclusive power to admit
a student at M.Phil./Ph.D. levels would therefore be arbitrary.”

The Delhi High Court drew a distinction between admission to an academic
course, through written examination and viva voce marks or exclusively based on
interview and opined that if viva voce marks are the only one “given 100% weightage it would be arbitrary”
and held that admission to academic courses and in the case of recruitment to service
posts “the position might be different.”

The Court further clarified, “given
the pattern of admission and the procedure adopted where 100% or entire
weightage is given to the interview process, the possibility of bias and also
adverse impact to SC/ST and other reserved category candidates is palpable and
real. Discretion, wherever allowed, is to be minimized; more so when it
concerns admission to academic institutions.”

Impact of the judgment

It was observed by the Delhi High Court that in wrongful implementation of UGC 2016 Regulations in JNU there was a “drastic reduction in student intake” which was held as “a national waste and requires to be redressed appropriately.” It was further reiterated by the Court that clubbing merited candidates with reserved category candidates by lowering the minimum acceptable marks from 55% to 50% for all is “not healthy.” The Court suggested that both UGC and JNU should workout some criteria to allow concession to SC/ST, OBC and PWD (person with disabilities) candidates. This ruling may not only have an impact on the future of reserved category students but also on the general category students as well. More students aspiring for higher education from prestigious institutions such as JNU will now get the opportunity of a fair, free and impartial examination system. The admission criteria being student-friendly will help retain the brilliant students of our country who are the future of our democracy.

Libertatem Magazine serves as a legal awareness resource for all, ranging from Students to Academicians to Practicing Advocates. Libertatem Magazine helps in the formulation of opinions and prepares individuals for a journey through our in-depth scrutinized content on almost all the topics including political, legal, social and a plethora of other matters of national & international significance.